We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
I wonder how much of this is down to the after-effects of the Woodford scandal, leading to a general distrust of funds dealing in unquoted companies.
It is very odd how retail investors (and I am of course one) are usually worried when share price languish for months at prices that seem illogical. After all, it is not as if every one of the holdings will go bust at the same time or has equal qualities in perfect market conditions.
Overall, the “price” of 100p value of shares in GROW can be purchased for 50p at the moment and yet turnover in shares remain muted and there is no appetite for the retail investor to accumulate.
I think it comes down, in part, to psychology. I discipline myself to try and buy either on the same day each month or force myself to buy on a “heavy” down day (FTSE falls 2% or more). The version of me that feels most comfortable is in a rising market where a trust is trading at a premium to its assets and I “know” I have done the “right thing”.
Investing is a long game and the longer it goes on, the more players are involved. Popularity might be as simple as counting the flies on a turd. The juiciest ones are the freshest and even better if the source is highly prized. Unquoted companies are out of favour, the appetite to float is missing and interest rates a couple of notches too much for risk to be lowered.
A May bank rate cut seems to be diminishing, though June is looking more promising. I think that rate changes might be the catalyst for a change in sentiment
Very best on the market for an ISA with a 5 year plus time horizon.
what will happen in the next few months, year or two of course uncertain. For my money it will sooner or later (but not later than 3 years) recover to previous SP so I don’t want to be on the platform when the train finally leaves the station.
Steph
Thanks for the explanation and good luck!
I also have some and it will be good if they can get back to over £10
i thought grow had the closest alignment with my own investment preferences by geography, sector and balanced exposure to the full development pipeline from pre seed to ipo.
i wanted a uk/eu strategy (usa overpriced for vc tech). i though by grow having circa 69 core companies in the different geographies and sectors and over a 1000 seed companies grow was quite diversified already. no need to diversify within the sector further. also i like the fact grow are active portfolio managers often sitting on the boards and nursing seed companies through to funding rounds. should give grow superior stock picking abilities to others who are usually one man/woman fund manager type funds. indeed core portfolio doing better than sector (few failures) but that success not priced in. extra admin costs of active investor-ship minor compared to gains of good quality informed decisions.
i also theorized (falsely) that volatility would be plus or minus 30% of a fairly steady nav/share. i did not see teh circumstances of nav/share downgrades without quite a screw up on key core companies which we have not had. i thought nav/share increases might only flatten in a bad market not dip.
i certainly did not see a 67% discount to nav/share persisting for any length of time as it has for over 1.5 years. i thought worst case a discount of that scale would be a flash crash such as we had march 2020 in the covid scare.
kknowing what i know now of course i should have been more diversified even within this sector. i did put a small amount of money in rolls royce at 80 feeling it was a technology stock in a industrial wrapper. i was right but did not hold much conviction on my analysis on rolls.
i am where i am. my best shot of getting back to break even and beyond in the next 2 to 3 years is to hold. nothing else on the market is likely to double or *****uple in 3 years. once back at 11.82 sp i will diversify regardless of my preferences and hold about 1/3rd of my isa portfolio in grow but not until then. wish me luck. at least we have not been diluted in a way that we will never return to 11.82. with the portfolio’s natural (and fast) organic growth at some future point we will get there.
I politely disagree. If you value the Pref correctly at say balance sheet date, its value is the liquidation value plus a call option on the ordinary share value at the conversion strike on IPO or takeover. It is not the value as if everything was converted because that conversion is contingent on IPO or takeover. Also most Prefs have no voting rights, how do you value this aspect? very subjectively I would suggest. The one thing market hates is uncertainty and it will always apply a big discount if you cant answer the basics. As Molten signs NDAs they cant answer in detail and hence we get the fluff they come out with when asked. You seriously have to question whether this information asymmetry is appropriate for a listed vehice? How can the hired help know more than the owners?
Steph
Why is GROW the only share that you are interested in ?
Do you not think that it is sensible to have a diversified portfolio instead of being 100% in Venture Capital ?
GROW has fallen by about 80% in recent years and so it has not been a good investment
Or what about investing in other VC companies ?
If you are only interested in VC do you not have any interest in diversifying in to some other VC companies like Augmentum or IP Group ?
Sad. Our SP is at such a discount it matters not if we have preference shares or not. I doubt the market giving much value to them at all at the moment. Of course our NAV calculations will at the margins take them into account but the market does not believe our NAV calculations.
I wish I was investing fresh and not well under my average buy in price (currently about 5 quid) but I still expect to be in a 100% profit within 3 years if not sooner. Wish not so many black swans swimming about. Israel, Ukraine, Trump, the list goes on.
Interest rates coming down and this is not priced in for our sector yet. I expect inflation to fall faster than predicted -especially if oil price eases as I expect with increased supply stimulated by high price itself. Also Saudi will get tired of the 2m barrel cut.
The valuation asymmetry will never be solved until the terms of the alphabet of Rref shares is standardised. There is absolutely no way anyone outside the negotiations can value the different prefs until you know the precise terms. Even theterms of a pref A from co. 1 can be different to Co.2. If it going to be held by a listed entity the allowed terms need to be standardised, otherwise the valuation debate is impossible. most retail investors dont understand the range of terms on these Prefs. You cant just assume they are all converted and value them the same as they are valued as at a particular date be that semi or annual.
Bought a few back at 230.
There is a regulatory problem to fix for retail wrapped illiquid assets. Can’t see why GROW feel constrained on this but regulation would oblige them.
We should be able to see clearly how many shares in the core portfolio companies we own and know how much is our valuations on the books for for each core portfolio company. That facilitates the correct level of “caveat emptor” as we can look at what those same companies are on the books for with other funds and with basic information such as sales, sales growth, sales margins and multiples of sales to valuations (pus of course the intangible spice of sector specific IP and “know how” ) we can do our own crude analysis of component company valuation.
The FSA has a legitimate concern -even if it is too Woodford closed fund trust structure based in it’s anxiety. If valuations of component companies in the trust are a black box maybe the retail price does not reflect market reality and a warning needs be issued of some sort. It is this obligation to warn that seems to be substantially deterring institutional investor into GROW at the moment.
In reality the retail wrapper is highly sensitive to even the possibility of NAV downgrades (I have been saying too sensitive) but FSA operates in a theoretical world.
So we have the worst of both worlds. FSA forcing funds to warn of potential losses the retail price already has priced in and more. Stupid.
GROW management can put out more component specific information in the meantime. They are only constrained by their agreements (probably informal ) with the component companies and not the regulator. Can’t see why we can not have runway length, sales, sales growth etc for each component company so we can make our own judgment on NAV calculations.
Anyhow SP will align with NAV/share once the market stabilizes for late rounds and IPO bit of pipeline. NAV/share will jump as well when that happens from our current circa 700 to something significantly higher based on underling company company sales growth and the maturing of some seed funded companies coming through the pipe.
One for the ISA for sure but in my view we are near a sharp correction upwards. Just can’s say when. Maybe on the year end results due out shortly.
Thanks Steph and others on this forum for some well reasoned opinions without mud slinging. My own 2 cents on this specifically I would want someone not in client relationship to provide a research note on Molton, so not Eddison.
Https://www.edisongroup.com/research/nav-down-c-6-in-the-first-half-of-fy24/32914/
Kazoo had no impact on half yearly results as was all fortunately sold. Ditto unfortunately for Uipath and Trustpilot who have been all sold off but have recovered a bit on the markets since.
I for one don’t want GROW to hold listed stock post IPO. I want them to exit in a late round or at IPO not after. This seems to be the policy.
Apart from Graphcore there's also Cazoo which many may have forgotten about it. I believe it's close to 100% loss on that one.
Quite right that with SP where it is anybody who invested in GROW at or after IPO in 2016 has lost money -expect the management. And in a sector that by all accounts has grown nicely (well above general market) since 2016.
I think part of this underperformance of the SP is just sentiment leveraged by the black box nature of the retail wrapper. I also think NAV calculations have been overly conservative which in good times is “petrol in the tank” resulting in SP premiums over NAV/share but in bad times leverages dark moods and reverse animal spirits.
For my money I an not even beginning to sell or diversify until we are 11.82 again however long that takes. I don’t see where the structural damage to the sector or the portfolio has been to justify the discount. As we did following the COVID recovery repricing once sentiment changes can be quick.
However, if one looks at NAV/share increases alone it has not done so well. GROW state 20% growth over the cycle which of course is compounded so NAV/share should be 4 to 5 times 2016.
On 3/2017, first full AR after IPO, Nav was 3.70 per share. After Forward and share placing I estimate it as 6.71, growth of 81.43% or 8.88% CAGR.
The external carry was £5.6M at 3/2017 and now its £95.3M thats a CAGR of 49.83% p.a. The share options CAGR is 46.7%p.a.
Valuations is one part of the story with GROW but the only place there has been real wealth since IPO is to the management. It is an absolute disgrace. The Board and large shareholders are asleep and incompetent. This sort of biased rewards does listed private equity no favours. The relationship between the Board & management is far too cozy. The ISIF is asleep and Blackrock have it stuffed in so many ETFs noone is looking at the fundamentals. Baillie giffords time horizon is now a lifetime for any payoff and so they cant throw stones as they are not performing great. This needs a very fundamental fix. as a shareholder you are really only funding the wealth accumulation of management in a very blatant way. Wakey wakey shareholders.
Investing.com may be nothing more than AI generated assumptions projecting losses incurred in the last 2 years of NAV/share too far into the future. Core portfolio continues to grow sales (themselves with healthy margins) at a 50% clip which is the main metric of valuations of unlisted shares that do not have a recent funding round to establish a market price for an unlisted share. Only need a stable (not falling) market for rapid NAV/share increases for GROW to occur and with that the big discount to NAV/share for our SP.
So unless a significant % of the core portfolio is going bust (no evidence of that) “losses” will end soon. Even Graphcore the most challenged of all our core portfolio in terms of viability is probably work what we have it for on the books or more.
We have been “losing money” only by using some pretty conservative industry valuations on core portfolio. Also as triple point indicate peak trough of valuations phase over.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/03/08/revolut-investor-slashes-fintech-valuation-5bn/
Irish time report that GROW have a 5% stake in Revolut. GROW in half yearly report Revolut on the books of 55.2 m pounds. That implies that GROW value REVOLUT at 11bn about half of a recent revaluation by Triple Point.
According to Investing.com (pro version) the fair value is 197, I expect the SP will go near or below that in the short term
They are still losing alot of money, analysts forecast this year’s loss will be over £130m
Https://techcrunch.com/sponsor/great-britain-northern-ireland/has-the-uk-become-the-best-place-in-europe-to-invest-in-tech/
So why is our SP at 8 year lows?
Just had a look and in 22 perkbox had sales of £39M, up 21% on previous. Grow at same level and pro-forma sales £57m for 2024. Perk valued at £140M thats 2.5x sales. Not the 20,30,40 times of the some of the others. of course I accept the TAM and technology of some of the others much more impressive but again just goes to show private valuation ranges can be vey very wide. For me, 10x is my max as a multiple of turnover, when we get to 20-25 I struggle but then I am more a public market guy.
Yes but molten first invested in perkbox in 2016. The issue with molten is the £128m invested in FY 21 and £311m invested in Fy 22. What does it say that the entity they first invested in 2016 comes out at slightly above breakeven. I have no issue with Molten's valuation per se, as I said earlier they are valuing according to recalibrated recent fund raises but the public markets are just not accepting the private market valuations. Different investors, different valuations and thats where we are.
The Perkbox valuation seems to have been pretty accurate as the sale was slightly above what it was held at
It certainly wasn't sold for a third of that value, which is what the SP valued it at.